Steve Scalise

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for two important reasons. One is to inquire of the majority leader the schedule for the coming week, and also to inquire of the majority leader the score of the LSU-Maryland basketball game from last week. I yield to my good friend from Maryland.

Mr. SCALISE. I will be happy to ask both questions again. I look forward to the Maryland crab dinner. I think, as the gentleman from Maryland knows, a lot of times when you go to places and they say it is Maryland crab, it is really Gulf of Mexico crab, because they want the best quality to offer the patrons. We were excited to see the buzzer beater. I know both of us were waiting in those last 12 seconds to see which team would walk away with the Sweet 16 banner. I am proud that my mighty Fighting Tigers of LSU were in that number. But we will come to D.C., and, hopefully, the gentleman will now be rooting for us so that he can say he rooted for the eventual national champion, LSU Tigers, to win the Final Four. I yield to the gentleman to hear about the schedule for the coming week in Congress.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the schedule update. I would like to inquire, we know that there are only 7 legislative days left for Congress to meet its required deadline to provide a budget, the April 15 deadline. What troubles me is that there has been no budget brought through the House Budget Committee. In fact, there have been reports that your majority doesn't plan to bring a budget at all. Obviously, the budgets are very important to show the priorities of our Congress, to show the priorities of each of our majorities, as we did in 7 of the 8 years we were in the majority, not only doing a budget, but then, this last year, we were able to reach a 2-year budget agreement, so we were able to know with certainty what the budget numbers were that we would actually be working on to draft our appropriations bills. Again, the bills carry out the priorities of Congress, to show the country how we are going to properly fund government at the levels that we, as a Congress, set, which is what the budget does. As I have seen, there is no current budget agreement negotiation going on that is yielding anything. So, without a budget agreement, does the gentleman plan to at least provide and bring a budget to the House floor? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. I will be happy to walk through the last 8 years.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, last year, as the gentleman knows, we were working under a 2-year budget agreement. Typically, we don't have a 2- year budget agreement. You bring one budget, and that is the budget for that year. For fiscal year 2012, the House passed a budget. In our majority, we passed a budget to establish those numbers to then start the appropriations process. In 2013, we passed through the House a budget to establish the 2013 budget numbers to work off of. In 2014, we passed a budget through the House to establish the budget for that fiscal year. In 2015, we passed a budget through the House to establish a budget for that year. In 2016, we actually got an agreement, both between the House and the Senate, and passed the budget, of course, through the House and the Senate. In fiscal year 2017, we passed a budget through the House and the Senate and got a full agreement to do an appropriations process. In fiscal year 2018, as the gentleman knows, we actually agreed to a 2-year budget agreement to not only set the fiscal year numbers for 1 year, but for 2 years, which was tremendously helpful in making sure that our Nation's defense, which many times had been used as bargaining chips for other budget negotiations, we took that off the table. We made sure our men and women in uniform had the certainty of a 2-year budget agreement, which doesn't happen often. Frankly, it should happen more often, and we should strive toward that, so we achieved that. In 2019, as the gentleman knows, we passed a budget out of the House Budget Committee, but we already had a budget agreement to work through the appropriations process because we had done a 2-year budget the prior year. We don't have even a 1-year budget agreement right now. And as the gentleman knows, there are no fruitful negotiations to get a 1- or 2- year budget agreement, so there is no budget number to work off of, which is why you produce a budget. Last year, we did bring a bill out of committee, but we didn't need to pass a budget because we already had the budget number agreed to from the 2-year deal prior. And so with that, is the gentleman willing to engage in or come to an agreement on at least a 1- or 2-year budget agreement so that we can actually have an appropriations process that works for the country and shows the priorities of this Nation? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am hopeful that we are able to start an appropriations process and, ideally, to complete it by summer--well in advance of the September 30 government funding deadline--because we shouldn't be operating under deadline after deadline, where we go until the midnight hour. But as the gentleman knows, you can't start an appropriations process until you actually set what are known as the 302 numbers, the 302(a) and (b) numbers, so that we know what each appropriations bill can target in terms of its overall spending number, to have that caps limit. Ideally, it would be done through a budget with the April 15 deadline, but maybe the gentleman is going to be able to work with the committee to get a budget passed out of committee before the deadline and, if not, as the gentleman urges, a hopeful desire to get a caps deal. I would like to get a caps deal as well. I supported the last caps deal because it gave us 2 years of certainty. It was bipartisan. It was an agreement that, while we may disagree on top-line numbers--and we want more money for defense, and some on your side might want more for nondefense discretionary--we finally came to an agreement. That did give tremendous certainty to our men and women in uniform. So over 70 percent of this Federal Government was fully funded for the fiscal year. Clearly, we had a difference on border security, and that remaining area of our budget wasn't funded. But at least the 70-plus percent of the people of this country who rely on those services and want a strong defense were able to see us achieve that. Hopefully, we can do something like that again well before the deadline. That is the objective.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the House majority leader, for the purpose of explaining the week to come.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim my time from the majority leader. Mr. Speaker, I do also want to thank Virgil for his time and his service to the House for so long and to work so closely with my friend, Cedric Richmond, but also with the entire Louisiana delegation. We have had a long history of working incredibly well together on issues that are important to our State and the country. Virgil has been right there from the beginning of Cedric's career and a great part of the Louisiana delegation but also a great part of what makes this House work. Mr. Speaker, while we will miss Virgil, I wish him well on his new life ahead, a lot of exciting times. I continue to look forward to seeing you in New Orleans at our great restaurants. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman for walking through the schedule, and I would like to ask the gentleman from Maryland about the process that we have had so far this Congress in terms of amendments that have been submitted on the House floor on legislation and the way that it has been incredibly closed, especially in a partisan way to Republican amendments. If you look just at the bill we debated a few minutes ago, H.R. 1, only 11 percent of Republican amendments were made in order. More than 60 amendments of Democrat amendments were made in order. And if you look at the entire Congress so far this year, there were only 16 percent of Republican amendments made in order while 73 percent of Democrat amendments were made in order, which does reflect poorly on the promise that this would be a more open process. I would ask the gentleman from Maryland, can you address at least in the future to make this a more fair and open process so that you are not closing out opportunities over and over again for Republican amendments to be made in order? And I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. Well, I thank the gentleman. I would like to point out, of those 72 amendments that you identify that were made in order, only nine were Republican amendments. So when we talk about a fair and open process, the government shutdown has nothing to do with the fact that your side committed to having a more open process, and it is not. In fact, it is the reverse of what we saw last Congress. If you look at the entire last Congress, the entire 2-year period, there were more Democrat amendments made in order under a Republican Congress than there were Republican amendments made in order. In fact, if you look at the numbers for the entire 2-year period, 38 percent of Republican amendments were made in order; 45 percent of Democrat amendments were made in order. In the overall number, 752 Democrat amendments made in order, 752. There were only 640 Republican amendments made in order. So more Democrat amendments were made in order under our majority than Republican amendments. In this Congress so far, it is been a harshly partisan process through the Rules Committee. Again, the entire year, only 16 percent of Republican amendments made in order; 73 percent of Democrat amendments made in order. And just looking at H.R. 1 again, we had on our side a colleague of ours, Representative Fitzpatrick. He actually led the FBI's agency on campaign finance and election crimes enforcement. He actually put people in jail who committed voter fraud, and this is a voter bill, a bill on voting rights, and you have a Member of Congress who actually worked with the FBI to put people in jail for voter fraud. He submitted seven different amendments to clean up some of the corruption that was in your bill that you just passed. Not one of his amendments was made in order. This is an FBI agent who actually put people in jail for voter fraud, not a partisan issue, and yet not one of his amendments was made in order. So you want to talk about a closed process, let's also talk about the policy that is being closed out, and if you want to shut out efforts to clean up voter fraud, that is your prerogative, but ultimately it is not what you promised when you took the majority and if you compare it to the last Congress. Again, the entire 2-year period, more Democrat amendments were made in order than Republican amendments were made in order under our Republican majority. I would hope in the future this process is less partisan and more fair, as it was promised to be. On that note, I would like to ask the majority leader about a word that is swirling around regarding changes to the motion to recommit. Now, when you look at the history of Congress, this motion to recommit is more than 100 years old. It had been a custom. It had been a custom where the majority party brings a bill to the floor under a rule, and regardless of all the amendments that are allowed, at the very end of that process, the minority party gets an opportunity to make a final amendment to the bill. That is the motion to recommit. It wasn't in the rules for a long time. And then towards the end of the Democrat majority, right before the 1994 revolution, there were efforts to take that away from the minority. So when the Republicans took over in 1994, the Newt Gingrich majority, they actually put in the rules the motion to recommit. Again, it was a custom going back 100 years. They formalized it. As the majority, they gave the minority that right in the rules. And it has always been there. It was cleaned up a little bit over the years, but it is a tool that has been always allowed to the minority. We are hearing--and it is rumor maybe--I would like to ask the majority leader to clarify, are there any efforts or attempts being made to change and diminish the motion to recommit? And I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman for clarifying that. And I hope that tradition continues on, that this motion to recommit stays in order, because there are some Members that, if the motion to recommit passes, would vote for final passage. So that is one of the tools that are used. And if you cite, as you did, the motion to recommit that we had on H.R. 1 just a little while ago, it actually was identifying a serious problem. It mentioned in that motion to recommit what happens in some communities where they are allowing illegals to vote, people that are here illegally, to vote in elections, whether it is school board elections or any other, and then you have a process where somebody has an ID, they are automatically sent to the voter registration files. And it creates a process where corruption can occur, where people who are here illegally can get on voting rolls and maybe you catch it at the local level and maybe you don't, but it creates that opportunity. So we had a motion to prevent that from happening, and, unfortunately, that motion to recommit failed. But again, that is a tool that has been available for any minority to use. And in fact, when you bring up H.R. 1 from last Congress, our bill to cut taxes for working families so that we can rebuild our middle class, which we are finally doing now because we cut taxes for everybody, people are seeing more money in their pockets; higher wages because of that bill. Heavily debated in committee; lots of amendments in committee on both sides. When it came to the floor, yes, there were no amendments on your side or on our side, but you did have a motion to recommit. So you had an amendment opportunity that we didn't have on that bill. But at the end of the day, obviously all Members on your side voted ``no.'' But you can see how the economy has taken off and how families actually have more money in their pockets and wages are up for working families because we cut those taxes. So I would point that out as we move forward, hopefully, those rules don't change in a way that would try to diminish even further the opportunities that both sides have to bring amendments to the floor. Finally, I would like to ask about the resolution that we had on the floor yesterday, the resolution to condemn all forms of bigotry, hatred. Unfortunately many of our Members felt it fell short of the objective that was stated by the majority at the beginning of the week, that there would be a resolution brought forward to actually condemn comments that were made, that were anti-Semitic by one of our Members. And I would like to ask the gentleman, is there going to be any action taken, especially as it relates to the Foreign Affairs Committee, to remove the Member that we are talking about? And I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SCALISE. And as we disagree with the underlying bills, we all agree that anti-Semitism is wrong. We have been very vocal in rejecting anti-Semitism and any form of bigotry. The issue with the resolution that was brought forward--first of all, as the gentleman, over months, has promised a 72-hour rule where there would be 72 hours to review legislation, as you acknowledged, that resolution continued to change over and over again. By the time it was filed, before Members had the opportunity to vote, there wasn't a 72- hour rule. In fact, there wasn't even a 72-minute rule. There was less than an hour to review the legislation As Members went through it, it included some things that we all agree should be rejected. But many Members--and I would refer the gentleman from Maryland to the statements made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), who eloquently stated why that resolution fell short at its original objection: to equivocate anti-Semitism, to refuse to acknowledge that as Members spew anti-Semitism. If we can say that anti-Semitism is unacceptable--and I agree. If we say that we should reject those policies, the dual citizenship question, which is anti- Semitic, the money influence, which was offensive and anti-Semitic, we keep coming back to this because these statements continue to be made. But if that is unacceptable, if you agree that anti-Semitism is unacceptable and bad policy, then why do you continue to leave a Member who is anti-Semitic on the committee that deals with the policy of the foreign policy of this Nation? It is a high-profile committee. The Foreign Affairs Committee is a plumb spot. Many Members on both sides want to get on that committee because it is so important at stating our foreign policy to the world, at standing with our allies. When you go to other countries and meet with officials, if you say you are on the Foreign Affairs Committee, it is a higher level of respect and acknowledgment that implies that your views represent the views of the United States Congress. That is the concern where the resolution fell short. And so many of our Members said: How many times are we going to have to keep voting on resolutions that talk generally but don't act specifically to address the problems? And if you want to talk about the President, President Trump has been very clear and vocal, speaking out against anti-Semitism. You saw him, just a few weeks ago, from this podium, in his State of the Union Address so eloquently bringing members to the gallery, people to the gallery: the three men who stormed Normandy Beach on D-day to liberate France and to defeat Nazis; the gentleman from Pittsburgh, the Holocaust survivor, over 90 years old, who survived the Pittsburgh shooting, who also was at Dachau. And then for the President to so eloquently refer to one of our heroes who stormed Normandy Beach and then a year later help liberate Dachau, what a special moment for this House to see how hatred and bigotry is evil but how the might and power of the United States stands up against it. We should all speak out against it, but we should also take the actions that, if somebody is continuing to exhibit those kind of beliefs in this Congress, they shouldn't be making policy on the committee that has jurisdiction. That has been the concern. I hope we don't have to come back to it. I hope we don't have to keep coming back to address this problem. It shouldn't be a growing problem. We should all stand up against it when we see it. And hopefully, we don't see it anymore because we are so clear--not just in our words, but clear in our actions. So as we continue to, hopefully, find common ground--and there is common ground to be found. This wasn't a good week for the United States Congress to see the kind of divisions, to see it take days to come up with a simple resolution that should have taken minutes to stand up clearly against anti-Semitic actions. So, hopefully, next week we can return to making policy where we are able to come together in a bipartisan way to address concerns and problems of this Nation. And I know I look forward to working with the gentleman if we find that common ground. And we will, we ultimately will. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, if we talk about H.R. 1, what the gentleman fails to mention is that bill gives billions of dollars of taxpayer money to politicians. Many have called it the ``For the Politicians Act.'' Most Americans across this country are hardworking. I don't want to see their taxpayer dollars go to some politician that they strongly disagree with so that they can run negative attack ads, things that people don't like to see on TV. If somebody wants to contribute to a campaign, that is their prerogative, but no taxpayer should be forced to give billions of dollars of their taxpayer money to politicians, whether they agree or disagree with them, by coercion from the Federal Government. That is in the bill. It has felons voting. Many States have laws against felons voting. For example, somebody brought this up and we weren't even able to get a clear answer. If somebody was convicted of child molestation in a State that prohibited them from going to schools, under your bill if they go to a school to vote--because now as a felon, as a child molester, even though that State bars them from voting, and that State bars them from going into a school--the bill gives them a hall pass to go into that school as a child molester, who, otherwise, under their State law, would be prohibited from going into that school where children are. So there are obviously a lot of other things in that bill that concern many Americans across the country. Getting back to the anti-Semitism debate we are having. The gentleman brought up the minority leader and other Members. The minority leader has been very vocal against anti-Semitism. Clearly, when you saw people giving outside money, over $100 million of their own money to influence campaigns, of course, that is a subject people talk about.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I will yield on that point, but I would like to make the point that the minority leader has been very vocal against anti-Semitism, and I just wanted to make sure that the gentleman wasn't inferring anything different in his comments.

Mr. SCALISE. Who is also Jewish.

Mr. SCALISE. We have supporters on both sides that, regardless of their faith, give lots of money to politics.

Mr. SCALISE. Now, if the criticism was that there were big donors to Democrats, of course, that is who was being mentioned. Regardless of their faith, those were the people who were giving large amounts, tens of millions of dollars each. As you have criticized, or brought up the name of the gentleman from Nevada, nobody questions that you are making a comment about his religious faith.

Mr. SCALISE. And neither should the assertion be made to anyone who brings up the three gentlemen who were mentioned. Reclaiming my time, the bigger issue is, it is interesting that the gentleman mentioned a bunch of names. He mentioned a lot of names, but the one name he didn't mention is Ms. Omar, who, at the beginning of this week, that was initially what the resolution was going to be, trying to address the comments made by Ms. Omar. Ultimately, the resolution went much further and left out that key component that many of us wanted to see addressed, many of us expected to see addressed, but a lot of people found it real interesting. For example, in section 7 of the resolution, it condemns death threats received by Jewish and Muslim Members of Congress. Why, interestingly, were death threats to other Members of Congress left out? I surely can speak to that as so many others of our colleagues can. All death threats against Members of Congress are wrong. Why did the resolution fall short in so many areas? Because it was so hastily put together. That is not the way we should address an issue this important. It was supposed to be a narrow resolution. Clearly, on your side, you had a lot of division over it. There shouldn't have been division over it. This is what we ended up with, and so, yes, many of our Members felt that while we have been very clear in rejecting anti-Semitism or anti-racism, or any kind of bigotry, that the resolution fell short of what its original objective was. Again, I hope we don't have to come back to this. I hope it doesn't continue. We can continue speaking about this, but let's be clear about who is speaking out against it, and who is continuing to engage in it. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, if he would like to comment further.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the diversity that we have. We obviously strive to be even more diverse, but the most important diversity that we have and that we are proud of is our diversity of thought. We are proud to respect people of all faiths. This was a Nation founded under a deep belief in God, but we don't have an established religion. We appreciate and respect people of all religious backgrounds. One of the things I love most about going to Israel as a Catholic is that so much of the history of my faith of Jesus Christ is represented there in Israel, where you can walk the streets of Jerusalem and literally walk in the steps of Jesus. The fact is that Jewish people in Israel respect that diversity; they respect people of all faiths. And that is one of the proud, crowning achievements of the Jewish state of Israel. If you look at where we are as a Nation, clearly, slavery is one of the stains, probably the greatest stain, of this Nation. The country struggled with it in its founding, and, ultimately, President Lincoln-- the first Republican President--President Lincoln gave his life fighting to end slavery. It was in this Chamber, newly built, where they had that great debate to finally pass the 13th Amendment, one of the proudest moments of our Nation. It was very contentious, but, ultimately, it was a struggle that had finally come to a head. Again, President Lincoln gave his life for that fight, and we still honor and respect him. In fact, we have a room right down the hall, the Lincoln Room where Abraham Lincoln as a House Member in the 1840s spent time, and we can all go, literally, sit or talk in the same place that Abraham Lincoln sat and talked as he was starting to build coalitions to end slavery, which he was ultimately able to secure. So we continue to fight. It was wonderful to see John Lewis on the floor, a true hero, not just a hero of this Congress. We had the honor to serve with Sam Johnson, who was a great hero. He spent 7 years in the Hanoi Hilton. It is a true honor to serve with John Lewis. And whether we disagree sometimes on politics, to be able to sit and talk with somebody who truly lived some of the toughest history of our Nation, and has the scars to prove it, and, yet, he still has love in his heart. He exhibits that love and that passion, so we are honored to be able to celebrate that diversity. Ultimately, it is a diversity of thought that we all should fight to achieve, equality and opportunity for all men and women in this great Nation. I yield to the gentleman, if he has anything else.

Mr. SCALISE. I agree. We should continue to honor all of those goals with our words and our actions. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Finally, I would like to talk about the constitutional infringements. And don't take it from me. Let's take groups as divergent as the ACLU and National Right to Life that all cite serious First Amendment concerns. ACLU says provisions ``unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations.'' National Right to Life: Enactment of H.R. 1 ``would not be a curb on corruption, but itself a type of corruption, an abuse of the lawmaking power, by which incumbent lawmakers employ the threat of criminal sanctions . . . to reduce the amount of private speech regarding the actions of the lawmakers themselves.'' This is a bad bill. It ought to be rejected.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Illinois for those kind comments. Go Tigers. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill that instead of being called For the People Act should be called ``For the Politicians Act.'' Let's take a look at some of the provisions of this bill that involve a Federal takeover of the elections process. First of all, section 5111 of the bill will allow billions of dollars of taxpayer money to be funneled into political campaign accounts. That is your hard-earned dollars, in many cases, going to fund a candidate for office that you oppose. Think about that. Now let's look at section 1402 of this bill, Mr. Chairman, where they allow felons to vote. Let's take, for example, a State that might have a law against felons voting, heavily debated in the State, where they are allowed that ability to set their laws enshrined by the Constitution. Here comes the Federal Government telling a State, for example, that if somebody went to Federal prison for voter fraud, they now have to let them be involved in the political process and vote, even though their own State law prohibits that person who was a felon for voter fraud. One thing we can't even get an answer on--and there are many, unfortunately--we can't even get an answer on the cost of this bill. Many estimates are that it will be billions of dollars, but nobody can truly tell you because they continue to make changes after changes without even going through the normal committee process that should have been done. If you look at the felons who can vote, think, for example, Mr. Chairman, a State--and many States have laws against felons who are child molesters from going into public schools. In many places, the polling location is a school. Under this bill, if someone who is convicted as a felon of molesting children and is banned by that State from going into the school, if they show up on election day, now, under this law, they have a hall pass. They can go into the school because of this new Federal law where the State said that child molester shouldn't be allowed in the school. Again, it goes on and on, the kinds of things you can't even get clear answers on. What would the cost be? Because they tell you the felons would be able to vote in the Federal election, but if your State law says they can't vote, then you have to have multiple ballots. If somebody shows up to vote, the State is going to have to try to figure this out at what cost to the State, not only the billions it costs the taxpayers? This bill enshrines voter fraud in so many different places. Many States have voter integrity laws to make sure that the person who votes is the person who is the name on the roll. This says you don't even have to have an ID if the State has a voter ID law. You can show up and just sign your name. You can say this is who I am, and you can vote. The Federal law overrides the State law in this case.

Mr. SCALISE

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Speaker Pelosi for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is really a special moment for all of us to pay tribute to Don Young for this great achievement, being the longest serving Republican in the House, especially for someone who loves this institution so much. As we talked about John Dingell and had the honor of serving with John Dingell in the House Energy and Commerce Committee and seeing his passion, not just for the issues he believed in, in fighting for the auto industry and so many other issues, but for his love of the people's House, Don Young has that same love. In fact, anybody who knows Don Young knows that his secrets to longevity are always speaking his mind, fighting every day to be a champion for the great people of Alaska, and always speaking his mind. On a somber note, Don started his career out of a tragedy. A lot of you remember that back in October of 1972, there was a plane crash in Alaska. Nicholas Begich and Hale Boggs, who at the time was the majority leader, went down in a plane crash. There was a massive search to try to find the plane. They never did find that plane. Ultimately, when they finally recognized that we had lost two great leaders, they had special elections. I get to serve and actually work every day in the office that Hale Boggs once worked in, the same office that Majority Leader Hoyer worked in as well, and I think about Hale a lot, as we think about Nicholas Begich as well. But I know Don was elected in a special election. That is when he came to Congress. Somebody else came to Congress: Hale Boggs' wife, Lindy Boggs, who some of you may have served with. They are probably too very different personalities, but they formed a special bond because of the unique nature in which they came to Congress. He shared with me some of those stories. It just shows you how sometimes our differences can, ultimately, bring us together to at least pay tribute not only to an institution, but to respect our backgrounds and how we all come here from different walks of life. Ultimately, it is our desire to serve the people who we represent. That is the thing I love the most about serving with Don Young. It is that he has such a passion. He fights for his beliefs, and he works with other people. We all know that, for 37 years, one of his great causes was to open up ANWR. Finally, we were on the White House lawn in December 2017 to have that ceremony and watch Don Young giddy as a schoolchild as the President was making that announcement, and then to see him still this day, and every day, come to work with the passion of representing the great people of Alaska and continuing to work with all of us on all the different issues that we come here to address. As we celebrate this great achievement, I think, as we all know, he comes and sits in that same spot and he yells ``order,'' and he yells a few other things, and he pushes us all to do our job in a much more efficient way. But how fitting it is that the United States' largest State has such a larger than life personality as its representative. Congratulations, Don. It is an honor to serve with you.